Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Bike-path gambit
doesn’t enhance safety
Re: “Safety debate at crossroads” (Page A1, Oct. 30).
In a recent meeting held behind closed doors, Contra Costa County and the city of Walnut Creek agreed to use over $6 million in funds from programs designed to promote highway safety and improvements to carve out a three-block-long bicycle path on Treat Boulevard.
The affected area runs from North Main St. to Jones Road, a stretch that currently handles over 40,000 vehicles a day. The proposed path duplicates the existing Canal Trail, which is dedicated to bikers and pedestrians, is located two blocks south of Treat Boulevard and connects directly to the Iron Horse Trail for access to the Pleasant Hill BART station.
The city acknowledged both the high risk to bikers using the proposed paths and the negative impacts on traffic in this highly congested area. So, why is this project going forward?
Larry McEwen
Walnut Creek
Opposing investment
policy is out of step
Re: “Ethical investment policy approved” (Page B1, Oct. 10).
The Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) came out in opposition to an Alameda County Ethical Investment Policy at the Oct. 3 Board of Supervisors meeting. The supervisors passed the policy but delayed implementation.
The majority of Jews present at that meeting were mobilized by Jewish Voice for Peace and supported the policy.
A September Washington Post poll found that the majority of U.S. Jews do not support current Israeli policies. The JCRC’s position of opposing a pro-human rights policy is not a mainstream position, and it is not aligned with Jewish values.
The JCRC accused Israel’s critics of antisemitism and expressed concern about Jewish safety. Associating Jews with the acts of a murderous regime makes Jews less safe. Jews are safer in a world that works for all, including Palestinians.
We urge the supervisors to implement the Ethical Investment Policy as soon as possible.
Cynthia Kaufman
Oakland
California must go its
own way on health care
Re: “Policyholders brace for price increases” (Page A1, Nov. 22).
The recent story harkens back to a pre-ACA time when people went without insurance because of the high costs of insurance premiums. What we need for California is a Cal-Care for all solution. However, this year, a Cal-Care bill was sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom, and he vetoed it. The main reason is that the federal government is not willing to give money that is due to us, which messes with the state budget.
Staying in the United States is not beneficial to California. In 2022, we gave $83 billion to the federal government, which ends up getting redistributed to other states. The California National Party is the only party that recognizes this and has universal health care (Cal-Care, or Medi-Cal for all) as part of its platform.
Maya Ram
Union City
Constitution will halt
third term for Trump
Re: “Don’t think Trump won’t try for third term” (Page A6, Nov. 18).
A letter writer opined that President Trump could seek a third term as president by being vice president on a ticket headed by JD Vance, and, after Vance won the presidency, Vance could, by prearrangement, resign, and Trump would become president.
However, the 12th Amendment of the Constitution stipulates that one who is constitutionally ineligible to be president is also ineligible to be vice president, which would presumably prevent Trump from becoming president under this subterfuge.
Trump could argue that the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution prohibits him only from being “elected” — but not actually serving — as president for a third term. But the Supreme Court would likely reject this subterfuge on grounds that it conflicts with the plain intent of the 22nd amendment to prevent a person from serving a third term as president through the electoral process, as Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930s.
Roderick Walston
Orinda
Don’t cancel comic;
just move it
Re: “Don’t cancel comic for having an opinion” (Page A8, Nov. 23).
I am one of the people who have written to request that “Mallard Fillmore” be moved to the Opinion Page, since it is clearly political in nature. I’m not asking that it be censored or removed from the paper, just that it be recognized as political opinion.
In the past few days, “Mallard Fillmore” has implied that the media only looks for bad things about Donald Trump and twists the truth, that liberals are stealing our tax dollars to support their own political party, and only care about disease in an election year, and the media is hypocritically misleading us about the destruction of the White House East Wing. Meanwhile, “Pickles” taught Nelson to say I love you to his grandma, and “Luann” adopted a puppy. Which of these is not like the other?
Incidentally, “Doonesbury” is offering more-than-20-year-old strips. That’s not a fair balance.
Sampson Van Zandt
Walnut Creek
